Anyone thought PS3 would still be in last place 6 years into this gen.

I don't think Kinect is making that big of an impact, console sales wise anyway.

FIipMode

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

Release a 600 dollar system, Act like every one whorships them and will buy a system no matter what, start removing things in a mad dash to bring down the price of the system, have no more A,AA,AAA then their competitors, maintain 3rd place throughout the generation, Continue to make little to no profit year after year compared to their competitors in the video game arena.

jimmypsn

And the 360?

Release a $500 system. KNOW that everyone worships them and will buy a system and allow you to price gouge them into eternity. %30/40 system failure rates across the board for the first two years. Blow your software load in the first 3 years and leave your community with tired sequels and rehashes with nothing original or inspired in-sight. Continue to make profit year after year by charging $15 dollars for map packs and becoming the most stagnant piece of washed-up technology on the planet.

It wasn't 500. Core was 300. Pro was 400. MS doesn't charge for map maps. You're think Activision. Sequels and rehashes are common on all systems. Look at PS3 2011 lineup. almost all sequels.

[QUOTE="jimmypsn"]

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]

And the 360?

Release a $500 system. KNOW that everyone worships them and will buy a system and allow you to price gouge them into eternity. %30/40 system failure rates across the board for the first two years. Blow your software load in the first 3 years and leave your community with tired sequels and rehashes with nothing original or inspired in-sight. Continue to make profit year after year by charging $15 dollars for map packs and becoming the most stagnant piece of washed-up technology on the planet.

carljohnson3456

It wasn't 500. Core was 300. Pro was 400. MS doesn't charge for map maps. You're think Activision. Sequels and rehashes are common on all systems. Look at PS3 2011 lineup. almost all sequels.

[QUOTE="FIipMode"]

I don't think Kinect is making that big of an impact, console sales wise anyway.

carljohnson3456

[QUOTE="jimmypsn"]

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]

And the 360?

Release a $500 system. KNOW that everyone worships them and will buy a system and allow you to price gouge them into eternity. %30/40 system failure rates across the board for the first two years. Blow your software load in the first 3 years and leave your community with tired sequels and rehashes with nothing original or inspired in-sight. Continue to make profit year after year by charging $15 dollars for map packs and becoming the most stagnant piece of washed-up technology on the planet.

carljohnson3456

It wasn't 500. Core was 300. Pro was 400. MS doesn't charge for map maps. You're think Activision. Sequels and rehashes are common on all systems. Look at PS3 2011 lineup. almost all sequels.

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

Release a 600 dollar system, Act like every one whorships them and will buy a system no matter what, start removing things in a mad dash to bring down the price of the system, have no more A,AA,AAA then their competitors, maintain 3rd place throughout the generation, Continue to make little to no profit year after year compared to their competitors in the video game arena.

jimmypsn

And the 360?

Release a $500 system. KNOW that everyone worships them and will buy a system and allow you to price gouge them into eternity. %30/40 system failure rates across the board for the first two years. Blow your software load in the first 3 years and leave your community with tired sequels and rehashes with nothing original or inspired in-sight. Continue to make profit year after year by charging $15 dollars for map packs and becoming the most stagnant piece of washed-up technology on the planet.

It wasn't 500. Core was 300. Pro was 400. MS doesn't charge for map maps. You're think Activision. Sequels and rehashes are common on all systems. Look at PS3 2011 lineup. almost all sequels.

Sorry, when in his post did he say anything about the USA? sorry theres more currencies in teh world than just US dollars, as for the MS doesnt charge for maps comkment, really? is that why theres mappacks out for halo3 and halo reach? not to mention the fact that MS hates free content, just looka t tthe fact that you have to pay for the L4D content that was released.

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

Release a 600 dollar system, Act like every one whorships them and will buy a system no matter what, start removing things in a mad dash to bring down the price of the system, have no more A,AA,AAA then their competitors, maintain 3rd place throughout the generation, Continue to make little to no profit year after year compared to their competitors in the video game arena.

jimmypsn

And the 360?

Release a $500 system. KNOW that everyone worships them and will buy a system and allow you to price gouge them into eternity. %30/40 system failure rates across the board for the first two years. Blow your software load in the first 3 years and leave your community with tired sequels and rehashes with nothing original or inspired in-sight. Continue to make profit year after year by charging $15 dollars for map packs and becoming the most stagnant piece of washed-up technology on the planet.

It wasn't 500. Core was 300. Pro was 400. MS doesn't charge for map maps. You're think Activision. Sequels and rehashes are common on all systems. Look at PS3 2011 lineup. almost all sequels.

100, 200, 400, 10,000, I don't care. You're missing the point. Microsoft charges for a lot of fluff and rarely if ever passes on anything for 'free' to the consumer. Sequels and rehashes are common, but again thats not the point. If all you're producing is Halo 4 or Gears 10 or whatever as your piece de resistance, then you're not trying very hard. My post was merely to show how simple it is to make blanketed statements about any of these companies. They're all the same in the end.

[QUOTE="carljohnson3456"][QUOTE="jimmypsn"]

It wasn't 500. Core was 300. Pro was 400. MS doesn't charge for map maps. You're think Activision. Sequels and rehashes are common on all systems. Look at PS3 2011 lineup. almost all sequels.

soulitane

[QUOTE="soulitane"][QUOTE="carljohnson3456"] MS doesnt charge for map packs? Pretty sure there was a dev not too long ago wanted to give DLC away for free but MS made them charge for it. Was it Valve? I cant remember...dotWithShoes

I don't believe for a second you actally care, so why make this thread again?edo-tensei

[QUOTE="soulitane"][QUOTE="carljohnson3456"] MS doesnt charge for map packs? Pretty sure there was a dev not too long ago wanted to give DLC away for free but MS made them charge for it. Was it Valve? I cant remember...dotWithShoes

Gears 2 is also exclusive to the only format that requires you to pay a monthly fee for access to them.

[QUOTE="dotWithShoes"]

[QUOTE="soulitane"] I think they've given a few devs trouble about free DLC, I believe they even said no to epic.Game-fu

Gears 2 is also exclusive to the only format that requires you to pay a monthly fee for access to them.

I can't believe I've enjoyed so many new series and games on my last-place, loser console

I can't believe I've enjoyed so many new series and games on my last-place, loser console

muzik_mafia

I wouldn't say its a loser console. But it is in last place. Sorry you feel that way.

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]

[QUOTE="dotWithShoes"] Must be why Epic had a free mappack for Gears 2? Someone has to pay for the space for the map pack to be stored, its either us(the consumer) or the dev.. Guess Valve is too cheap to do that.

soulitane

Gears 2 is also exclusive to the only format that requires you to pay a monthly fee for access to them.

Because you pay a fee on XBOX Live for things such as storage and maintenance. However, PSN also requires things such as storage and maintenance and yet there are no such fees. Therefore the cost obviously need not be passed on to the consumer or the developer. Microsoft chooses to charge people for every little scrap of content that graces the pixels of the XBOX dashboard. The idea that a multi-billion dollar company has to charge people a few dollars for virtual content is ridiculous.

I really dont care. I feel i have more than gotten my money's worth. I have a Wii which i essentially purchased for 3 games ( and one yet to be released ). I am much more happy with my PS3 investment than i am with my Wii investment. And this is without even factoring in the several dozen BD's i have watched as a result.

PS3 hasnt even existed for 6 years yet. Its only 4 years old.

I blame Sony's marketing campaign for the failure of a launch it had. Does anyone remember those commercials? They were creepy and off putting. I don't really know what they were advertising but it didn't look like games to me. There was also pretty much zero advertising spent on the games. Resistance could have been way bigger than it was, but it was like Sony forgot the PS3 was a gaming console and advertised everything else about it first.

Then MGS4 came out, the first well established franchise on the console in a long time and the system sold a little bit. Then sometime mid 2009 it was as if Sony realized the PS3 was a gaming console and begin the new advertising campaign, particularly that of Kevin Butler, and it was fun again.

I used to have no interest in it, and then great games started being released for it left and right. I don't care if Sony is in last place, especially if I'm enjoying the console, but they obviously had a terrible start. I'm surprised at how much of a comeback they've made

When the PS3 actually catches up in sales.. they have beaten the 360.. because they launched a year later.... so somewhere they gained a whole year in sales.

Sales comparisons should be made from this years Sony numbers, and last years Microsoft numbers.. for a more accurate.. "who has sold more over this amount of time" comparison.

Again, how is it fair or even logicalto compare 6 years of sales with PS3 on the market if its only been out for 4? PS3 launched in Nov. 2006, its Januarey 2011. thats not 6 years. thats not even 5 years. 360 isnt even 6 years old yet, so that means the gen isnt 6 years old either. 360 launched in fall 2005.

They could start by releasing hardcore games instead of all the casual crap that they've been shoveling out.

"I only play mature games for mature gamers such as myself" button mashers, kiddie platformers that make Mario look like Unreal Tournament, and bad movies disguised as video games just don't cut it.

They could start by releasing hardcore games instead of all the casual crap that they've been shoveling out.

"I only play mature games for mature gamers such as myself" button mashers, kiddie platformers that make Mario look like Unreal Tournament, and movies disguised as games just don't cut it.

DerpyMcDerp

What? The Wii and 360 are far more casual than the PS3 and they are both above the PS3 in sales.

I think after PS1 and PS2 we all thought that Sony would dominate again and I don't think anyone thought a motion controlled Wii would be so dominant.

[QUOTE="muzik_mafia"]

I can't believe I've enjoyed so many new series and games on my last-place, loser console

jimmypsn

I wouldn't say its a loser console. But it is in last place. Sorry you feel that way.

I love my PS3 man, best purchase I've made (I'm 15)

I guess loser was a harsh statement.

I question how much being in third matter when the sales difference between 360 and PS3 overal is realtively small. Its not like gamecube being in third with like 20 million or so sold and XBOX had 42 million sold and PS2 had over 100 million sold.

I question how much being in third matter when the sales difference between 360 and PS3 overal is realtively small. Its not like gamecube being in third with like 20 million or so sold and XBOX had 42 million sold and PS2 had over 100 million sold.

XboximusPrime

You got your sales numbers wrong. Xbox is at 24 million. GameCube is at 21.74.

I question how much being in third matter when the sales difference between 360 and PS3 overal is realtively small. Its not like gamecube being in third with like 20 million or so sold and XBOX had 42 million sold and PS2 had over 100 million sold.

XboximusPrime

The systems are all selling very well and PS3 and 360 are very close. Who really cares?

[QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]

I question how much being in third matter when the sales difference between 360 and PS3 overal is realtively small. Its not like gamecube being in third with like 20 million or so sold and XBOX had 42 million sold and PS2 had over 100 million sold.

waltefmoney

You got your sales numbers wrong. Xbox is at 24 million. GameCube is at21.74.

[QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]

I question how much being in third matter when the sales difference between 360 and PS3 overal is realtively small. Its not like gamecube being in third with like 20 million or so sold and XBOX had 42 million sold and PS2 had over 100 million sold.

waltefmoney

You got your sales numbers wrong. Xbox is at 24 million. GameCube is at 21.74.

huh, guess I overestimated them then. Still, I would like my point to still stand that I think the sales difference isnt enough for Ps3 being in third to be a big deal. It only matters to the fanboys when its that small.

Never even though about it to be honest. djsifer01

And why should you? the sales difference is like 4 million or whatever, which while certainly bigger, is not big enough to really care all that much about.

This is surprising to me. I never thought this would happen but Sony has not done well this gen compared with previous generations.

They lost all the money they made on the PS2 on the PS3.

PS3 is hacked and will likely be exploited.

PSN is not profitable.

What can Sony do to change things around.

[QUOTE="jimmypsn"]

This is surprising to me. I never thought this would happen but Sony has not done well this gen compared with previous generations.

They lost all the money they made on the PS2 on the PS3.

PS3 is hacked and will likely be exploited.

PSN is not profitable.

What can Sony do to change things around.

clone01

Whenever people start to talk about sales, I think about Transformers 2 (the movie).

Sony is horrible at marketing, so they deserve to be in last place:P

Sony makes shoddy hardware and many people had to replace their defective PS3 3-5 times after going through Sony's terrible "customer service" if you can even call it that and laughable warranty, which has inflated their sales numbers. Sony has held up their title of worse build quality every gen and this one is no different.

DerpyMcDerp

guys, Dont mind this kid, his a troll;)

i am a little surprised, i mean last gen they were top of the world with the ps2 and this gen they are DEAD last with the loser console PS3..it is a bit shocking

[QUOTE="DerpyMcDerp"]

Sony makes shoddy hardware and many people had to replace their defective PS3 3-5 times after going through Sony's terrible "customer service" if you can even call it that and laughable warranty, which has inflated their sales numbers. Sony has held up their title of worse build quality every gen and this one is no different.

RickyRevolver

guys, Dont mind this kid, his a troll;)

With a name like DerpyMcDerp he can't be !

i am a little surprised, i mean last gen they were top of the world with the ps2 and this gen they are DEAD last with the loser console PS3..it is a bit shocking

meatgrinderz

[QUOTE="spookykid143"]

[QUOTE="meatgrinderz"]

i am a little surprised, i mean last gen they were top of the world with the ps2 and this gen they are DEAD last with the loser console PS3..it is a bit shocking

winner-ps3

i thought the same thing looking at your username...winner ps3. does not compute.

i have liked so many last place consoles that i don't really see what difference it makes.

i have liked so many last place consoles that i don't really see what difference it makes.

Riverwolf007

I have yet for a guy to come over an award my PS2 it's gold medal and my regular XBox with it's bronze medal from last gen. Where's my medals dammit?!:evil: